<<> The discussion was relatively short, but basically Dr. Spohn took each
> opportunity to be aggressive concerning
>the motives of evolutionist and the lack of ANY evidence for any form of
> evolution.
to which George Murphy replied:
>> An intelligent person may conclude that the balance of relevant
evidence is against biological evolution, but to say there is a "lack of
ANY evidence for any form of evolution" is utterly preposterous. I
suppose that it's a good "debate" strategy to refuse to concede any
trace of validity to an opponent's argument - but that's just one more
reason why training in "debate" should be discouraged - as Plato pointed
out.
>>
George,
You usually hit the nail on the head, and I appreciate that. This time,
however, you missed the point of Allan's communication. His point was that it
is possible to disagree with evolutionary teaching without being disagreeable.
He wrote:
"Mark Witwer [head of science, DELAWARE COUNTY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL] spoke very
thoughtfully - clearly stating that he had thoroughly read the booklet - and
emphasizing some concerns about using microevolutionary observations as proof
for marco changes. He hinted at the unfortunate situation of it being ALL or
NOTHING. Although he didn't elaborate on various Christian views. He
brought up the philosophic differences in assuming NATURALISM, that
nature is all there is, rather than allowing for the possibility that
NATURALISM wouldn't be able to solve all problems.
"Dr. Kennedy clearly was appreciative of Mr. Witwer's attitude, and made
little reference to Dr. Spohn's.
"The kind of dialogue that becomes possible when we are gracious in our
discussions will certainly further the cause of Christ most effectively."
Here is a positive example of how maintaining a critical attitude toward
evolutionary teaching can be done in a gracious manner. No need to dwell on
Spohn's aggressive approach.
Bob